Another school shooting.

[Arete]

I'd feel more threatened in an environment where guns are easily accessed, increasing the chance that one will be accessed by a person that has a desire to kill for the sake of killing.

Agree - it's very difficult to swing the statistics to argue from a factual - rather than emotional standpoint that access to firearms makes you safer. An increase in firearm ownership significantly correlates with a increase in gun related deaths, even with the US excluded. http://mark.reid.name/iem/gun-deaths-vs-gun-ownership.html

Increased gun ownership correlates with a higher rate of gun related homicide, but not having a gun does not correlate with non-firearm homicide rate:

"Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17070975

Being in possession of gun when you are assaulted significantly increases the likelihood you will be shot during that assault.

"...After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05)."
http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2759797/

Second, is the extremely low probability that you will be murdered by a complete stranger (e.g. http://malini.data360.org/graph_group.aspx?Graph_Group_Id=1177; http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/crime-courts/stranger-murder-myth-dispelled.19350541). Violent crime is not generally random, and the risk posed by random violent attacks is extremely disproportionate to the risks involved in having a loaded weapon in your house for self defense - a gun in your house is around 22 times more likely to be used on an occupant than to be used in self defense http://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/Abs..._Deaths_Due_to_Firearms_in_the_Home.10.a spx

The real argument in the US is given the validated right of a person to own a gun for the purpose of defending oneself (a right NOT mandated in Australia or Switzerland), what is the appropriate trade off between one person's second amendment right to bear arms, and another person's constitutional right to "life and liberty"? Clearly gun ownership has a negative impact on life and liberty at large, clearly gun control has an impact on the rights of the individual. Having lived in both places, I think Australia has the trade off a lot better worked out than the US.

 

[J@se]

Not allowing semi automatic military style weapons throughout society is hardly wrapping us in cotton wool, mate. Personally, I do not feel the need to have a firearm to keep me safe, Australia isn't dangerous enough for that kind of measure, the threat environment simply does not justify it. So taking away a liberty I do not care for is not much of an issue here.

Mate, there will always be crims, bikies and other dickheads that will lower the standard of living. However even with the current spike in violence - in Sydney - I still don't see the threat environment even slightly close to a point that I'd consider a firearm to protect myself/family. Secondly, I'd suggest, because I don't actually know, that the majority of bikie and crim related firearm violence is not inflicted randomly on the 'civilian' population. I make the assumption that the majority of armed crimes that the 'criminals' carry out is on other criminals and their associates. Crims don't often shoot up schools, churches and shopping centers in Australia, they mostly act for financial gain. It's not the crims that I feel I have to defend myself against. I'd feel more threatened in an environment where guns are easily accessed, increasing the chance that one will be accessed by a person that has a desire to kill for the sake of killing.

So taking away a liberty I do not care for is not much of an issue here.

Just because its a liberty you do not care for, does not mean it isn't an important liberty to others. A gradual erosion of liberties/rights are still an erosion.

Let me make this absolutely clear. I do not own a firearm for personal protection. It is a sporting implement ONLY. I don't know where in my posts I said I need it to defend myself, should I ever need to pull it out for such, it would take me less time to whittle one from the furniture than to get my firearms out of the safe.

I'd call suburban streets and bullets into homes from drive-by shootings pretty public. My problem is a simple one really, crims will have illegal firearms no matter how many restrictions are put on Law Abiding Firearm Owners. The shooter in this recent massacre actually attempted to legally purchase firearms and was denied (the laws worked!), he then became a criminal by murdering his mother, stole her legal firearms and then committed the massacre (He killed to get the guns, thats not "easily accessed" IMO). You cant legislate for that! Also, the Columbine massacre was DURING the previous "Assault Weapon" Ban. Short of a buyback and destruction of these firearms (never going to happen) it will change nothing.

Second, is the extremely low probability that you will be murdered by a complete stranger (e.g. http://malini.data360.org/graph_grou...Group_Id=1177; http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/c...elled.19350541). Violent crime is not generally random, and the risk posed by random violent attacks is extremely disproportionate to the risks involved in having a loaded weapon in your house for self defense - a gun in your house is around 22 times more likely to be used on an occupant than to be used in self defense http://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/Abst....10.a spx

The real argument in the US is given the validated right of a person to own a gun for the purpose of defending oneself (a right NOT mandated in Australia or Switzerland), what is the appropriate trade off between one person's second amendment right to bear arms, and another person's constitutional right to "life and liberty"? Clearly gun ownership has a negative impact on life and liberty at large, clearly gun control has an impact on the rights of the individual. Having lived in both places, I think Australia has the trade off a lot better worked out than the US.

So you're saying these incidents are extremely low probability? You're using this example to illustrate why people don't need legally purchased firearms, correct? But you're willing to trample on people rights to prevent these extremely rare occurrences? Sounds like you want your cake and to eat it too.

 

[workmx]

Another interesting article.
Quote:
'The Harvard School of Public Health's David Hemenway published a study in 2011 and concluded that the chances of violence occurring in the home were increased when a gun was around. "On the benefit side, there are fewer studies, and there is no credible evidence of a deterrent effect of firearms or that a gun in the home reduces the likelihood or severity of injury during an altercation or break-in...".'

 

[pharmaboy]

So you're saying these incidents are extremely low probability? You're using this example to illustrate why people don't need legally purchased firearms, correct? But you're willing to trample on people rights to prevent these extremely rare occurrences? Sounds like you want your cake and to eat it too.

You've got to read the point in the context of the entire post he made. High availability of guns highly correlates with far more murders, far more in home homicides by people that know you as well - eg if mum in the case at hand didnt have guns she'd be alive today as well as 20 children.

I am absolutely willing to trample of peoples rights to have whatever guns they want in order to not have a violent murder rate like that of the USA - i find it quite hard to believe that this point is being argued - the US is easily the most dangerous western country on the world, and it also has the most lax gun laws - its far closer to a 3rd world nation tbh - people from within cant see out of their forest, but from over here, the elephant in the corner is clear as day.

 

[Sic]

The shooter in this recent massacre actually attempted to legally purchase firearms and was denied (the laws worked!), he then became a criminal by murdering his mother, stole her legal firearms and then committed the massacre (He killed to get the guns, thats not "easily accessed" IMO). You cant legislate for that!

Well you can actually. You can legislate against the type of weapons that are legally available to the public, like we do here.

This is what people want when they suggest that assault weapons (like the ones stolen by the perpetrator of the shooting) should not be available to the public.

The problem with assault weapons and handguns with large magazine capacity is they dramatically increase the ease with which you can shoot a lot of people in a short period of time. Yes you can steal a bolt action .22 or a pump action shotgun and kill people but you wont kill as many as quickly as you can with an Ar-15.

 

[pharmaboy]

The other problem, apart from availability of the assualt weapons, is the allowance of weapons for self defence. As a contributor above noted, properly stored weapons in accordance with Australian laws ensures they are not easily available, ie pins removed, locked up, ammunition stored seperately.

If Nancy Lanza only had the weapons for shooting targets, and had to keep them locked up, then her son wouldnt have even passed first base and being able to murder her let alone the following 26.

The crux of the problem is "self defence" - something that doesnt exist in their constitution btw.

Great post BTW Arete.

 

[workmx]

The crux of the problem is "self defence" - something that doesnt exist in their constitution btw.

Great post BTW Arete.

Indeed. The recent passing of "Stand your ground" laws is concerning.

To be able to apply deadly force simply because you feel treatened (thought that you felt threatened, as it is often a post hoc justification) is very problematic.

This is what happened in the cases of Jordan Davis and Trayvon Martin.

 

[Regan of Gong]

There's a lot of citing of anecdotes and anomalies by the pro-gun crowd, rather than recognition of general trend.

 

[workmx]

There's a lot of citing of anecdotes and anomalies by the pro-gun crowd, rather than recognition of general trend.

And what "general trend" would that be?

 

[J@se]

You've got to read the point in the context of the entire post he made.

So its the general vibe of his post is it? Unfortunately you cant use stats that say one thing, to make a point about the exact opposite.

High availability of guns highly correlates with far more murders, far more in home homicides by people that know you as well - eg if mum in the case at hand didnt have guns she'd be alive today as well as 20 children.

How the fark can you possibly know that? Hey here's an idea, find out the facts of the case. He attempted to buy a firearm legally, when that failed he then killed someone to get them. What says it had to be his mother? Could have been anyone, either way its safe to say he was pretty set on killing and would have found some means to do so. Just recently someone in Australia hit a Protective Services Officer with a hammer and stole his gun, luckily the only person that guy shot was himself, but it could have been different.

 

[J@se]

Well you can actually. You can legislate against the type of weapons that are legally available to the public, like we do here.

This is what people want when they suggest that assault weapons (like the ones stolen by the perpetrator of the shooting) should not be available to the public.

The problem with assault weapons and handguns with large magazine capacity is they dramatically increase the ease with which you can shoot a lot of people in a short period of time. Yes you can steal a bolt action .22 or a pump action shotgun and kill people but you wont kill as many as quickly as you can with an Ar-15.

The problem with that reasoning is a simple one, they can't and won't remove the many thousands of existing ones from circulation. It won't eliminate the issue at all, they will still be able to be bought and sold privately. I would also suggest a cottage industry will sprout up where gunsmiths and fitters will machine spare parts for them.

You guys seem to think that there will be some kind of Howard style buyback and crushing of these things, problem solved. Won't happen, and they're still not talking about the cultural and mental health problems that are at the root of this.

 

[workmx]

I beleive that Sic was talking about non-proliferation not removal.

They are different issues.

 

[Sic]

The problem with that reasoning is a simple one, they can't and won't remove the many thousands of existing ones from circulation. It won't eliminate the issue at all, they will still be able to be bought and sold privately. I would also suggest a cottage industry will sprout up where gunsmiths and fitters will machine spare parts for them.

You guys seem to think that there will be some kind of Howard style buyback and crushing of these things, problem solved. Won't happen, and they're still not talking about the cultural and mental health problems that are at the root of this.

Regardless of weather a buy back would work in America or the sprouting of cottage industries, a simple ban on assault weapons would reduce the amount of these weapons in the community at large.

The vast majority of US citizens are law abiding nice people and arent going to rise up against their government if they ban the future sale or current ownership of certain weapons. Some people would be pissed off and the majority would choose to comply with the law and move on, which would (eventually) reduce the amount of weapons in the community.

No one is suggesting that the banning of anything addresses the obvious issues with 'gun culture' in America or the holes in their mental health services but if you can limit the damage done when those things fail then why not ban a few weapons that really should just be in the hands of soldiers?

 

[floody]

If this is true, then there could be over 2 million AR15s floating around the USA. I have no idea as to the veracity of the stats, but if thats even close...well even in a population of 313,000,000 that's still a lot of chances for mayhem.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/20...many_assault_rifles_are_there_in_america.html

 

[Hamsta]

Gun reform will do very little in my opinion. If someone is so intent on committing mass murder they have other methods available to them such as poisons, fire and so on and so forth. I am no where near convinced that gun reforms will prevent mass murder.

 

[moorey]

I am no where near convinced that gun reforms will prevent mass murder.

Mightn't work, so why bother trying. Business as usual folks.

 

[Spike-X]

Gun reform will do very little in my opinion. If someone is so intent on committing mass murder they have other methods available to them such as poisons, fire and so on and so forth. I am no where near convinced that gun reforms will prevent mass murder.

Fuck it then, might as well just let people keep stockpiling weapons and going on killing sprees.

 

[StanTheMan]

Well you could try fly a plane into a big building & make it collapse.


Good luck. They'll be onto you in no time. Because they've actually done something constructive about that kind of thing.

Although I'm a big fan of gun control. I can't see it happening in the USA
Do I care? Not in the slightest. With the attitude they have towards guns or military style guns.....

It's almost like the seatbelt thing. how dare they take away the liberty of the right not to wear a seat belt.....

Of course I think we all agree that an combination of airbags & seat-belts is as safe as you can get today.

I'm quite possibly out of date. Perhaps they have changed attitude. I stopped reading their shit about 10 years ago.


Stan's bus rant's since 2011. Now on 4S

 

[flamshmizer]

Gun reform will do very little in my opinion. If someone is so intent on committing mass murder they have other methods available to them such as poisons, fire and so on and so forth. I am no where near convinced that gun reforms will prevent mass murder.

Poison would take a significant amount of prior thought and planning, fire is not guaranteed to kill many peoples as it can be stopped (in all probability easier than you can stop a gunman). Gunman just needs to have an off day, grab his rifle and many bullets he has lying around home perfectly legally and head down to the local (people gathering place). It can be done in haste as a crime of passion.

For mid scale killings (like 5-50 people) I doubt you would fine a more prolific medium than guns.

 

[Arete]

So you're saying these incidents are extremely low probability? You're using this example to illustrate why people don't need legally purchased firearms, correct? But you're willing to trample on people rights to prevent these extremely rare occurrences? Sounds like you want your cake and to eat it too.

This is a non sequitur.
a) Reduced firearm ownership does not only reduce random acts of gun violence committed by strangers, but the other 98% of shootings which are not random acts committed by strangers, as previously demonstrated.
b) The low probability of an event doesn't mean mitigating actions should not be taken. You're far more likely to be struck by lightning than killed in a terrorist attack, but we still aren't allowed more than 3oz of liquid or a pair of sewing scissors on a plane. The reason the same argument doesn't apply to home defense guns is because not allowing liquids on a plane does not make it 22 times more likely to crash than terrorists are.
c) What are these rights I'm trampling? In Australia, you simply don't have a an explicit right to own a gun. In the US, the second amendment right to bear arms is specifically in relation to the right to form a, verbatim, "well regulated militia". This is not an explicit right to keep a loaded AR15 under your pillow to scare off the boogey man, and nor are regulations on what guns you can keep, where you can keep them and how they are stored in conflict with the right to bear arms as a member of a well regulated militia. Gun control (note - not gun banning) is not in violation of anyone's mandated rights. There are already laws here banning automatic weapons.

I was making two specific points:
1) The argument for guns as personal safety is pretty unequivocally falsified by a cursory look at the facts.
2)Was specifically that you can't eat your cake and have it too - ALL laws are a trade off between personal freedom and public liberty. Drink driving laws impinge on your personal freedom to drive home from the pub, public decency laws impinge on your right enjoy a wank when you feel like it, etc. Deciding what the acceptable risk of between people getting shot, and the personal liberty to own guns is a trade off. 972,000 shooting incidents and 30,000 deaths is a clear demonstration to most people around the world that the trade off in the US is skewed unacceptably.